Quebec sovereignists in parliament: where to draw the line?

[Machjo]

One of the main arguments that Harper had used against the coalition in his televized address to the nation before popoguing parliament was the danger of making a coalition with 'separatists'.

Now we could debate whether or not a federalist party should or shouldn't form a coalition with a sovereignist party. But I'd rather look past that and take us to the root of the matter; how far should other parties acknowledge the Bloc?

So far, it would appear that all the major parties, including the Conservatives have acknowledged their right:

1. to exist
2. to be voted for in elections
3. to hold seats in parliament.
4. to vote as MP with their vote holding as much weight as that of any other MP.

It appears that the line is drawn at guaranteeing a confidence vote for a minority government, at least for the Conservatives, whereas the other major parties seem to recognize even that.

Now my questions:

Why do you think the Conservatives have chosen to stop there and not sooner or later?

Why do you think other parties are willing to recognize this further step?

Where do you think the line ought to be drawn? Sooner, right about there, or further?

What could be the possible consequences of drawing the line too soon or too far?

 

[Machjo]

Oh, and two more things.

What other groups besides separatists ought to have certain rights curtailed in Parliament?

As for where you think the line ought to be drawn, do you think it ought to be drawn by law, in the constitution, or simply by custom?

 

[Zzarchov]

You do know that Harper has publically stated in the past he was willing to work with the seperatists to form a minority government right?

 

[Colpy]

Oh, and two more things.

What other groups besides separatists ought to have certain rights curtailed in Parliament?

As for where you think the line ought to be drawn, do you think it ought to be drawn by law, in the constitution, or simply by custom?

Whoa there, Mate!

It is called Democracy, and the Bloc MPs were elected by their constituents. In a democracy, they must have every right and priviledge allowed every other MP. No exceptions.

Indded, in the latest fiasco, the BQ were the ONLY MPs doing what they were elected to do; get the most possible for Quebec at the cost of the RoC.

As for their inclusion in a coalition, this must not happen, but by the same token, it must be allowed. The only retribution to be handed out should come from the voting public, and it should be aimed at those who would offer the BQ power and influence: the Liberals and NDP.

 

[Zzarchov]

As for their inclusion in a coalition, this must not happen, but by the same token, it must be allowed. The only retribution to be handed out should come from the voting public, and it should be aimed at those who would offer the BQ power and influence: the Liberals and NDP.

You forgot "And the Conservatives who have made the offer in the past as well"

 

[L Gilbert]

Yeah, not one of the three leading parties is worth a pinch of donkey dung IMO. Everytime some new one gets in at the head of one of them I have new reason to hate federal politicians.

 

[Machjo]

Interesting. Personally, I think they were elected and so ought to be full-fledged MP's like any other. But the way Harper was talking, he was saying that it was 'undemocratic', which seemed to suggest that he beleives some MP's should have some rights curtailed based on their beleifs, maybe not in law, but curtailed none-the-less.

I personally saw nothing 'undemocratic' about it as all of the MP's were democratically elected. But to suggest that it was 'undemocratic' seemd to suggest that he not only opposed the coalition, but even its right to exist, or that it was unconstitutional or something. Highly misleading I thought.

 

[L Gilbert]

Welcome to the real world, Pilgrim. Politicians mislead people. They also tell lies, cheat, make promises they don't keep, etc.

 

[Colpy]

You forgot "And the Conservatives who have made the offer in the past as well"

Read all about it!

globeandmail.com: Bloc part of secret coalition plot in 2000 with Canadian Alliance

First of all, it wasn't Harper

Second of all, it wasn't the Conservatives.

Thirdly, although talks supposedly involved someone "close to" Stockwell Day, MPS were never consulted, no coalition existed.....except in the fevered hopes of some back-room boys.......nothing was signed, perhaps vbecause Chretien won a clear majority...

fourth.....any party that enters any agreement that hands any federal power to the Bloc (and that includes a veto) loses my vote for a long, long time......

 

[Cliffy]

It must be disillusioning to believe that we live in a democracy with all the evidence to the contrary. Parliament is only allowed to make laws with the approval of those who actually run the show. Liberals and Cons are no different. They are bought and paid for by the same corporate interests. A fiend pointed out the other day that isn't it interesting that both the American and Canadian governments are in limbo - at the same time and in the middle of an economic crisis! What is really going on behind closed doors these days?

 

[Colpy]

It must be disillusioning to believe that we live in a democracy with all the evidence to the contrary. Parliament is only allowed to make laws with the approval of those who actually run the show. Liberals and Cons are no different. They are bought and paid for by the same corporate interests. A fiend pointed out the other day that isn't it interesting that both the American and Canadian governments are in limbo - at the same time and in the middle of an economic crisis! What is really going on behind closed doors these days?

Get off the grass, Cliffy....

 

[Machjo]

Read all about it!

globeandmail.com: Bloc part of secret coalition plot in 2000 with Canadian Alliance

First of all, it wasn't Harper

Second of all, it wasn't the Conservatives.

Thirdly, although talks supposedly involved someone "close to" Stockwell Day, MPS were never consulted, no coalition existed.....except in the fevered hopes of some back-room boys.......nothing was signed, perhaps vbecause Chretien won a clear majority...

fourth.....any party that enters any agreement that hands any federal power to the Bloc (and that includes a veto) loses my vote for a long, long time......

If it loses your vote, that's one thing. But to call it undemocratic? That's an insult to the constitution, the democratic process, and thus to Canada. Harper was free to say that in his opion it was dangerous, etc. But not to say that it was undemocratic whe it is not only democratic, but 100% backed by the constitution. If Harper is to claim that it's undemocratic, then is he planning to rewrite the constitution any time soon?

 

[Colpy]

I don't disagree........

 

[Machjo]

Actually, all this leads me to another question. I'm not Quebecois, but am French Canadian and have lived in Quebec in the past. Though I don't support Quebec sovereignty, I don't fear it either. From my experience in Quebc, most sovereignists are moderate in the sence tht they would support a planned and organized move towards sovereignty, and would generally prefer to remain in the federation until then (they're not interested in anarchy). Exceptions exist, but they're a frindge group like the Christian Heritage Party or Communist Party, for instance.

If anything, many federalist French Quebecers are more likely to fear anti-sovereignist fear-mongering than the sovereignists themselves.

This extreme phobia of Quebec sovereignty seems to be unique to the English-speaking part of Canada, and I don't get it. My guess is that since most Canadians can't communicate with one another over the language divide, it's easy for fearmongers on both sides to promote fear of the other, and portray the other as fanatic and extremist (interestingly enough, even among French Quebecers who are federalist, there is sometimes a perception of anti-sovereignist from the West to be more extremist and fanatical than the sovereignists, with the sovereignists being perceived just as people they disagree with just like a conservative might disagree with a liberal, viewed as perfectly normal and democratic).

The only solution I could see would be to somehow try to break through the language divide itself so that French-Canadians who don't know English (the ones most likely to support sovereignty, by the way) and English-Canadians who don't know French (the ones most likely to engage in anti-sovereignist fear-mongering), could somehow communicate with one another directly, without the help of an interpreter. That's the real challenge in my opinion.

I remember when I lived in Charlevoix years ago, and on the news I could see MP's, including PM Jean Chretien, speaking English on TV with their voices being dubbed into French. Needless to say, for those who don't know English, that would make their PM seem foreign, even if he does know French. There is a powerful psychological imprint caused by seeing your national leader on TV being dubbed for you so you can understand him, on a regular basis. How much more foreign can you make your PM seem?

What would be your ideas on bridging this language divide between monolingual Canadians on both sides of the language divide?

 

[Zzarchov]

Read all about it!

globeandmail.com: Bloc part of secret coalition plot in 2000 with Canadian Alliance

First of all, it wasn't Harper

Second of all, it wasn't the Conservatives.

Thirdly, although talks supposedly involved someone "close to" Stockwell Day, MPS were never consulted, no coalition existed.....except in the fevered hopes of some back-room boys.......nothing was signed, perhaps vbecause Chretien won a clear majority...

fourth.....any party that enters any agreement that hands any federal power to the Bloc (and that includes a veto) loses my vote for a long, long time......

Actually it was Harper, it was the conservatives and it was 2005. He mulled the idea (I physically heard it) got alot of shid from the Liberals and NDP (funny how the view of things change for them when they are on the side of a fence) and then changed his mind denying he ever said anything on the matter, and that if he had it was merely him joking around.

Which seems odd considering it was a Harper-Ducceppe alliance that brought down the Martin Government, and he wrote a note to the GG asking to allow the Conservatives to run with the support of the Bloc.

 

[Machjo]

But I'd like to know why French-speaking federalists and English-speaking federalists view the sovereignists so differently. French-speakers tend to view them as just people they disagree with, not much different than other parties, whereas English-speakers fear them outright. Why do you think that is?

 

[Colpy]

Actually it was Harper, it was the conservatives and it was 2005. He mulled the idea (I physically heard it) got alot of shid from the Liberals and NDP (funny how the view of things change for them when they are on the side of a fence) and then changed his mind denying he ever said anything on the matter, and that if he had it was merely him joking around.

Which seems odd considering it was a Harper-Ducceppe alliance that brought down the Martin Government, and he wrote a note to the GG asking to allow the Conservatives to run with the support of the Bloc.

You are right, I believe.....I remember something about it, but couldn't place time or specifics........

All I've got to say are three things....

1. Bringing down a gov't for an election is different than signing up a coalition to rule.........

2. Considering a coalition, and (belatedly) rejecting the idea is different from signing up a coalition to rule......

3. Conservative, Liberal, or NDP, anyone that brings the Separatists into government loses my vote forever and ever, amen.

 

[Machjo]

And where do we draw the line there?

Let's suppose that your party has a choice between forming a coalition with the following parties:

1. A decentralist world federation party.
2. a centralist world federation party.
3. a centralist Canadian federation party.
4. a decentralist Canadian federation party.
5. a sovereignty association party.
6. a centralist sovereignist party.
7. a decentralist sovereignist party.
8. a pro-city-state party.
9. an anarchist party.

Personally, I'd feel most comfortable with a coalition with 1 above, but would probably feel comfortable with 3-9 above, and not too comfortable with 2 above.

How would you rate yourself according to these criteria?

 

[Zzarchov]

3. Conservative, Liberal, or NDP, anyone that brings the Separatists into government loses my vote forever and ever, amen.

They aren't bringing the Bloc into government, they are getting their tactic support not to just overthrow them in the same manner as they just overthrew the Tories.

This is exactly what Harper wanted in 2005.

 

[Machjo]

There is a point there. Harper is portraying this as a 3-party coalition.It isn't. It's a 2-party coaltion with a 3rd party promissing to give its confidence. Beyond that, though, the Bloc would still vote on a bill-by-bill basis.